International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 09 | Sep 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF G + 5 MULTISTORIED
BUILDING USING DIFFERENT METHODS
R. RAJ KUMAR1, M. MANOJ PRAVALI2
1PG
Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Nova College of Engineering & Technology,
Jangareddygudem, India,
2Assistant Proffesor, Department of Civil Engineering College, Nova College of Engineering & Technology,
Jangareddygudem, India
-------------------------------------------------------------------------***-----------------------------------------------------------------------ABSTRACT:- The design process of structural planning
and design requires not only imagination and conceptual
thinking but also sound knowledge of science of
structural engineering. In the present study G+5 (BBLOCK), Hyderabad. There are several methods for
analysis of different frames like Kani’s method,
cantilever method, portal method, and matrix method. In
order to design them, it is important to first obtain the
plan of the particular building that is, positioning of the
particular rooms. Depending on the suitability; plan
layout of beams and the position of columns are fixed.
Thereafter, the loads are calculated namely the dead
loads, which depend on the unit weight of the materials
used (concrete, brick) and the live loads, which
according to the code IS:456-2000 and HYSD BARS
Fe415 as per IS:800-2007. Footings are designed based
on the safe bearing capacity of the soil. For this purpose,
frame analysis is done by limit state method and
substitution frame method and the values of each design
procedure are compared. The manual deign has been
done by using various methods and comparative analysis
is tabulated in the present investigation.
STATEMENT OF THE PROJECT:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Salient features:
Utility of building : educational building
No of stories : G+5
Shape of the building : block-b
No of staircases : 2
Type of construction : R.C.C framed structure
Types of walls : brick wall
Geometric details:
Ground floor : 3.1m
Floor to floor height : 3.1m.
Height of plinth : 0.6m
Depth of foundation: 2 m
Materials:
Concrete grade : M 30,M 20
All steel grades: Fe415 grade
Bearing capacity of soil: 200 kN/m
PLAN:
INTRODUCTION:
A multi-story building is a building that supports two
or more floors above ground. There is no formal
restriction on the height of such a building or the
number of floors a multi-story building may contain,
though taller buildings do face more practical difficulties.
Buildings are the important indicator of social progress
of the county. Every human has desire to own
comfortable homes on an average where one spends his
two-third life time in the houses. The security civic sense
of the responsibility. These are the few reasons which
areresponsible that the person doutmost effort and
spend hard earned saving in owning houses. Nowadays
the house building is major work of the social progress of
the county. Daily new techniques are being developed
for the construction of houses economically, quickly and
fulfilling the requirements of the community engineers
and architects do the design work, planning and layout,
etc., of the buildings. Draughtsmen are responsible for
doing the drawingworks of building as for the direction
of engineers and architects.
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.34
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1057
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 09 | Sep 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
LOADINGS:
DESIGN OF SLAB:
Types of loads on an hypothetical building are as follows.
One way slab:







Vertical Loads
Dead (gravity)
Live (gravity)
Snow(gravity)
Wind (uplift on roof)
Seismic and wind (overturning)
Seismic (vertical ground motion).
LOAD CALCULATIONS:
Dead load:
Self weight floor finish=3.75+1=4.75 KN/m2
Live Load:
For our structure live load is taken as 5 KN/m
Loads on columns:
Columns
Total Load (kN)
C-1
1617.7
C-2
1580.126
C-3
1580.126
C-4
1580.126
C-5
1580.126
C-6
1580.126
C-7
1190.974
C-8
1094.605
C-9
370.48
C-10
2190.385
C-11
2253.88
C-12
937.28
C-13
2468.26
C-14
1265.63
C-15
2617.24
C-16
3321.9
C-17
3321.9
C-18
3321.9
C-19
3321.9
C-20
3321.9
C-21
2669.2
C-22
3129.3
C-23
1708.52
C-24
1615.54
C-25
1656.43
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.34
Two way slab:
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1058
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 09 | Sep 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
Beams:
DESIGN OF STAIR CASE:
Beam dimension=300*500
Dog Legged Stair Case
Beam dimension=230*500
Beam dimension=300*700
FOOTINGS:
Stair Case
DESIGN BY KANI’S METHOD:
Methodology Adopted:




© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.34
|
A 4-storey-4-bay unsymmetrical frame structure
was set as a problem frame.
Kani’s analysis was performed for vertical
loading conditions.
Same problem frame was analyzed using
substitute frame method for vertical loads.
Approximate substitute frame analysis results
were then compared with those found by the
accurate Kani’s analysis and corresponding
percentage deviations were determined.
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1059

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 09 | Sep 2019
p-ISSN: 2395-0072
www.irjet.net
The major advantages of using modern software are-
Substitute frame analysis was performed using
some assumptions, then again the results were
compared with the Kani’s analysis.

Comparision of Kani’s method end moments and
substitute frame method end moments
Member
Kani’s
method
End
moments
(kN)
Substitute
frame
method
End
moments
(kN)
Kani’s
Vs
Substitute
frame
method
AB
40.11
-54.36
26.2%
BA
83.76
72.27
13.7%
BC
-76.8
-75
2.34%
CB
77.45
75
3.16%
CD
-77.484
-77
0.62%
DC
77.483
74
4.49%
DE
-77.482
-74.79
3.47%
ED
77.481
74.79
3.47%
EF
-77.480
-74.81
3.4%
FE
77.485
74.81
3.4%
FG
-77.481
-74.81
3.4%
GF
77.480
74.81
3.4%
HG
-77.481
-74.81
3.4%
GH
77.480
75.5
2.55%
HI
-84.62
-74.91
11.4%
IH
66.1
66.7
0.89%





They reduce the manual work to be
done
They increase the accuracy of values
obtained
They are easy to access
If any errors they are displayed well
before the completion of analysis
They give compact outputs easily
accessible at any
point of time.
REFERENCES:







Raz Sarwar Alam. Analytical Methods in
Structural Engineering. Wiley Eastern Private
Limited, New Delhi, India.
Vazirani V.N. & Ratwani M.M. Analysis of
Structures, Khanna Publishers, Delhi, India.
Volokh, K.Y. (2002). On foundations of the Hardy
Cross method. International Journal of Solids
and Structures, Volume 39, Issue 16, August
2002, Pages 4197-4200.
Text book “ SUBSTITUTE FRAME METHOD” by
CODE BOOK IS: 456:2000, IS: 875 (Part-1, 2,
3), SP-16.
http://www.iosrjournals.org/nitrkl.ac.in/2395/
1/study of “substitute frame method” pdf.
Anand A.S. Theory of structures (Indeterminate
structural analysis), Satya Prakashan, 1989.
CONCLUSIONS:
Thus the building is designed as per standards. Here the
procedures followed are under standards and the
methods are “SUBSTITUTE FRAME METHOD & KANI’S
METHOD”.
As all the calculations are done manually, it is better if
we use any soft-wares for the design.
EX: Stadd.pro. It is a soft-ware that also shows us errors
before the completion of the analysis.
Being dependent on Manual calculations is not
good all the times. For small scale residential building
manual calculations are good but for large scale
constructions manual are not suitable.
All the calculations are done manually and the values
of both the methods are compared with each other.
According to the comparison and further studies “KANI’S
METHOD” is better than the “SUBSTITUTE FRAME
METHOD” as it is handy and less time taking method.
© 2019, IRJET
|
Impact Factor value: 7.34
|
ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal
|
Page 1060